Nikon's New D5 and D500 Push the Boundaries of DSLR

umphotography wrote in post #17981158
My buddy started posting D500 files........25000 ISO.....Crapola......7​D2 just took a giant leap backwards

The D5 is simply remarkable

As a canon shooter. really tickled the 1Dx2 is going to be as good as it is. But the D5 has it beat in the ISO department...No Doubt

and the 1Dx2 has the D5 beat in the AF Department... No Doubt

Everything I have read and Now see points to captain obvious. These updates are game changers for both MFG's followers. Canon finally gets a sensor with great Dynamic range, dark/shadow retention, usable ISO at 25000 on a body with the best AF system of the market. Nikon has a sensor that performs better with ISO ( probably a full stop ), has great dynamic range, the best dark/shadow retention on the market and has the 2nd best AF system on the market. Both MFG's have the best glass available to slap on these bodies to get the best optical performance we have ever seen to date. Its going to be very difficult from this release forward to jump around from body to body especially for professionals who are very much invested with the perspective line ups they use. Dont forget, we are talking body and glass investment only. Now factor in speedlights, OCF lighting investments and it makes it darn near impossible to switch around.

Thats my opinion and Im sticking to it

Man, you've got to put things in perspective. The 7D2 didn't take a giant leap backwards. It will take the same great images tomorrow that it took yesterday. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply, but the 7D2 has been in the market for 18 months. People have been using it and shooting terrific stuff for 18 months, while the D500 was just a distant dream. I would be shocked if Nikon released a camera that wasn't as good as this. If not, what would be the point? Also keep in mind that the Nikon D500 sells for $2000, The 7D2 for only $1500 and lower on occasional sales. We still don't know how the AF compares, or the DR at low ISOs. And I'm more interested with the noise at !so 6400 than 25000 anyway. So in the end you're saying a brand new $2000 camera is better in some respects than a 1 and 1/2 year body which currently sells for $1500. Isn't that kind of a no brainer?

Preordered-Can't wait!!!!

canon rookie wrote in post #17981941
Preordered-Can't wait!!!!

You have a varied array of cameras. let us know what you think.

One feature I'd like to try out is the AF auto tune on the D5/D500. This could be a big time saver.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …ed-af-fine-tune-explained

mwsilver wrote in post #17981498
Man, you've got to put things in perspective. The 7D2 didn't take a giant leap backwards. It will take the same great images tomorrow that it took yesterday. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply, but the 7D2 has been in the market for 18 months. People have been using it and shooting terrific stuff for 18 months, while the D500 was just a distant dream. I would be shocked if Nikon released a camera that wasn't as good as this. If not, what would be the point? Also keep in mind that the Nikon D500 sells for $2000, The 7D2 for only $1500 and lower on occasional sales. We still don't know how the AF compares, or the DR at low ISOs. And I'm more interested with the noise at !so 6400 than 25000 anyway. So in the end you're saying a brand new $2000 camera is better in some respects than a 1 and 1/2 year body which currently sells for $1500. Isn't that kind of a no brainer?

then by what you are saying is the D300/D300s didn't take any steps backwards either because its been out on the market even longer yet then the 7d2 and was cheaper than the 7d2 and was being used while the 7d2 was just a dream

power shot wrote in post #17982726
then by what you are saying is the D300/D300s didn't take any steps backwards either because its been out on the market even longer yet then the 7d2 and was cheaper than the 7d2 and was being used while the 7d2 was just a dream

Exactly. Old cameras don't take a step backwards. New cameras take a step forwards. It's not the same thing Take a step backwards means "going back to a ​worse or less ​developed ​state:" Last time I looked the 7D2 did not start performing poorer as a direct result of the release of the D500. And the presence of the D500 does not lessen the ability of the 7D2 to perform at the same level it has for 18 months. The 5D II was surpassed by the 5D III and now we hear the 5D IV is in the works for a late summer release, not to mention the presence of the D810. Yet somehow there are still lots of professionals and advanced amateurs using and getting great results with the 5D II. People get too caught up with the hardware and loose sight of the fact that the biggest difference in results from one camera to another is going to be the skill of the person holding it, not a couple of stops of ISO or a little better DR.

rick_reno wrote in post #17982027
One feature I'd like to try out is the AF auto tune on the D5/D500. This could be a big time saver.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …ed-af-fine-tune-explained

Yes, that sounds like an exciting new feature along with the 153 focus points. These and other features too often seem to take a back seat to the high ISO performance in many discussions of this camera, as if that's the only thing that matters.

rick_reno wrote in post #17982027
One feature I'd like to try out is the AF auto tune on the D5/D500. This could be a big time saver.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …ed-af-fine-tune-explained

Wow! How awesome would this be?!?

mwsilver wrote in post #17981498
Man, you've got to put things in perspective. The 7D2 didn't take a giant leap backwards. It will take the same great images tomorrow that it took yesterday. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply, but the 7D2 has been in the market for 18 months. People have been using it and shooting terrific stuff for 18 months, while the D500 was just a distant dream. I would be shocked if Nikon released a camera that wasn't as good as this. If not, what would be the point? Also keep in mind that the Nikon D500 sells for $2000, The 7D2 for only $1500 and lower on occasional sales. We still don't know how the AF compares, or the DR at low ISOs. And I'm more interested with the noise at !so 6400 than 25000 anyway. So in the end you're saying a brand new $2000 camera is better in some respects than a 1 and 1/2 year body which currently sells for $1500. Isn't that kind of a no brainer?

Relax Dude

IT WAS A JOKE

mwsilver wrote in post #17982730
Exactly. Old cameras don't take a step backwards. New cameras take a step forwards. It's not the same thing Take a step backwards means "going back to a ​worse or less ​developed ​state:" Last time I looked the 7D2 did not start performing poorer as a direct result of the release of the D500. And the presence of the D500 does not lessen the ability of the 7D2 to perform at the same level it has for 18 months. The 5D II was surpassed by the 5D III and now we hear the 5D IV is in the works for a late summer release, not to mention the presence of the D810. Yet somehow there are still lots of professionals and advanced amateurs using and getting great results with the 5D II. People get too caught up with the hardware and loose sight of the fact that the biggest difference in results from one camera to another is going to be the skill of the person holding it, not a couple of stops of ISO or a little better DR.

It was a Joke

umphotography wrote in post #17983134
It was a Joke

Thanks for the clarification. I posted my initial response to you because it really didn't read like a joke to me. I've read similar comments on other sites which were definitely not jokes. There is so much negativity heaped on the very capable 7D2 that perhaps I'm over sensitive. My second post responding to poweshot was because he suggested the D300 as another example of a camera taking a leap backwards and I wanted to clarify why I objected to that phrase. While I'm not always successful, I try to be very precise when I post things.

mwsilver wrote in post #17983194
Thanks for the clarification. I posted my initial response to you because it really didn't read like a joke to me. I've read similar comments on other sites which were definitely not jokes. There is so much negativity heaped on the very capable 7D2 that perhaps I'm over sensitive. My second post responding to poweshot was because he suggested the D300 as another example of a camera taking a leap backwards and I wanted to clarify why I objected to that phrase. While I'm not always successful, I try to be very precise when I post things.

Let me be very clear. The 7D2 is a very good camera. I bought it because of the AF system ( ITS A 1DX AF SYSTEM FOLKS ), Reach factor with a crop sensor, and because of ISO improvement over the 7D1.

I would rarely go past 4000-6400 with the 7D2.....for ME...6400 is as far as I would go

The new D500 has excellent ISO performance and the files are easily pushed in post. My friend has one and put up wildlife shots yesterday. Metered for the sky, brought bottom of bird out in post at 12000 ISO.......Brillant file and no noise seen until you cropped in 150%.

It has my 7D2 BEAT by a lot. But Im not going to bad mouth the 7D2. Still a great camera and I will use it a ton. I like having a crop, I love the 17-55 v/s the 24-70, I love the Tokina 11-16 F/2.8.....so 7D2 gets a ton of use from me

All that being said..........D500 has a better sensor for ISO, dark/shadow needs than the 7D2. By A Lot.... Doesnt mean 7D2 is a bad camera. Love mine

AF tracking/servo on the D500 > 7DII?

Silver-Halide wrote in post #17985398
AF tracking/servo on the D500 > 7DII?

Not sure if anyone's done a direct comparison yet. I'm sure there will be opinions on this very soon.

mwsilver wrote in post #17983194
Thanks for the clarification. I posted my initial response to you because it really didn't read like a joke to me. I've read similar comments on other sites which were definitely not jokes. There is so much negativity heaped on the very capable 7D2 that perhaps I'm over sensitive. My second post responding to poweshot was because he suggested the D300 as another example of a camera taking a leap backwards and I wanted to clarify why I objected to that phrase. While I'm not always successful, I try to be very precise when I post things.

I am sorry but the 7D2 is a joke, a tremendous letdown. I actually left Canon when it came out with the 7D2, after waiting for years for a successor to my 7D.

I believe you are "oversensitive" because in your bones you it's the truth: camera is simply an under-achiever, where it matters, which is in its ability to render high-quality images. (Sure people have taken fine images with it, because of the light and the subject, but the camera simply excels at nothing, sensor-wise.)

Everything else about this camera is great: AF, build quality, FPS, etc. Yet it is a fool's errand, because at the end of the day everything you do, every shot you take, gets captured on the sub-par, pale, sickly sensor compared to the competition. Most of us Canon users "wanted" to like it; but no matter how you slice it, the Canon 7D2 was simply disappointing. Instead of being at the forefront of sensor technology, it was bringing up the rear, sensor-wise.

Don't believe me, take a look at the scores on 3 different websites compared to Nikon's older, smaller D7200.

• SenScore (click Scores, APS-C, then you'll see the 7D2 with terrrible color/DR/noise ratings);
  
• DxO Mark
  
• Photons.net